Universal Access To All Knowledge
Home Donate | Store | Blog | FAQ | Jobs | Volunteer Positions | Contact | Bios | Forums | Projects | Terms, Privacy, & Copyright
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload

Reply to this post | See parent post | Go Back
View Post [edit]

Poster: Ole Uncle John Date: Oct 6, 2005 9:39pm
Forum: etree Subject: Re: sound quality MP3 vs WAV

"If what I want is in SHN format, I download it, use dbPoweramp to convert it to FLAC, store it as FLAC, and burn it when I want a disk."

Hey Forkbeard (great name!), I was wondering why you bother to convert to FLAC rather than just archive the SHN? Is it because you don't want an archive of multiple formats??

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Forkbeard Date: Oct 7, 2005 6:11am
Forum: etree Subject: Re: sound quality MP3 vs WAV

Yeah, mostly I just decided to keep one lossless format on my music machine. After some very supeficial research, I developed a preference for FLAC. You know - all that tech stuff that other poster knows all about.

I've been ripping all my CDs to FLAC, as well as DLing from the Archives. Storage is so cheap anymore that it's feasible to have a totally lossless music server.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Ole Uncle John Date: Oct 7, 2005 9:14pm
Forum: etree Subject: Re: sound quality MP3 vs WAV

Thanks for your reply. I'll consider FLAC when I begin archiving lossless. Due to storage and financial reasons (OK also laziness), I've always burned WAV and deleated lossless from my HD.

Now that I've purchased a laptop that burns DVD and realize just how much I can store on one disk I may start archiving all my lossless for future use.

Are most traders out there as happy to recieve FLAC as SHN? Would a conversion from SHN to FLAC in the lineage bother anyone? Thanks

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Administrator, Curator, or StaffDiana Hamilton Date: Oct 9, 2005 4:45am
Forum: etree Subject: Re: shn vs flac again

Would a conversion from SHN to FLAC in the lineage bother anyone?

Undocumented lineage changes bother people very much, especially since many original .shn sets are documented at http://db.etree.org/shncirc and people keep track of circulating material through there. Even if it's just a changeover from shn>flac because you feel like it, the txt file must be updated to explain your change. Otherwise, people suspect something else may have happened, good or bad. Boundary fix? Rerip from CD, and txt file lazily taken from an original seed? No way to tell.

Usual advice to keep things simple is to keep the fileset as it is unless there is a reason to tweak the fileset apart from shn>flac. After the tweak, put the changed set into .flac instead of .shn while you're at it (and clearly update the txt).

I'm throwing this in about the txt file because it's easy for people to do an easy shn>flac op and then *not* record that that's all they did.

This post was modified by Diana Hamilton on 2005-10-09 11:45:23

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: JodyC Date: Oct 7, 2005 2:38am
Forum: etree Subject: Re: sound quality MP3 vs WAV

Also, dbPoweramp will convert shn to wav without the flac step you're using.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Forkbeard Date: Oct 7, 2005 6:18am
Forum: etree Subject: Re: sound quality MP3 vs WAV

Yeah, but like I said, I decided to support just one lossless format on my main music machine. A little more work up front (when I DL a SHN and have to vert it into FLAC). But less to maintain later.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Administrator, Curator, or StaffJ.B. Nicholson-Owens Date: Oct 7, 2005 4:54am
Forum: etree Subject: Why use FLAC instead of Shorten?

Shorten is non-free software; licensees can only distribute zero-cost copies, and the license attempts to restrict commercial use. For me, this alone makes Shorten a showstopper. The last thing I want are archives stored in a format I can't legally share and modify my programs to work with later on. This modification may involve commercial activity if I hire someone to do work for me or if I want to distribute copies of the improved program commercially. FLAC is free software; users have the freedom to share and modify the program for any purpose at any time so long as they pass on the same freedoms they had when they got their copy of the program.

Shorten's metadata storage ability is inferior to FLAC's.

Shorten compression doesn't produce as small of a file as FLAC compression of the same data.

FLAC files will play in some portable digital audio players.

FLAC supports 24-bit audio and beyond.

FLAC has integrated checksums.

This post was modified by J.B. Nicholson-Owens on 2005-10-07 11:54:38

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Forkbeard Date: Oct 7, 2005 6:22am
Forum: etree Subject: Re: Why use FLAC instead of Shorten?

I examined that comparison chart on the net, and it looked like FLAC held several small but real advantages. Honestly, for what I do, either would work fine, I'm sure. FLAC just looked a bit more modern and open and extensible. I really hope it endures.

I sure wasn't gonna pick that new Microso*t lossless format, was I?